Is it Time for the US Government to Ban Gun Ownership?

[Moon Bee]

Can that check be done in today ?

 

[Art]

This pole is biased with a bunch of "NO's" from people that are not american and thus should not vote.

I thought we had a thread about this already. If you don't like guns that's fine, then don't buy one. You can cry all you want about it, but the majority of Americans don't agree with your views. If you don't like it, to damm bad. You can either (a), not buy a gun, or (b) not live in America. If the time comes that AMERICANS feel we should not have guns, we will amend the constitution.

Ahem Cyrus "NO" in the poll means you keep your guns.

 

[Cyrus]

Crap, I meant to say Yes. Dammit!

Hey, it wasnt a pole on intelligence.

 

[turbo]

This pole is biased with a bunch of "NO's" from people that are not american and thus should not vote.

I thought we had a thread about this already. If you don't like guns that's fine, then don't buy one. You can cry all you want about it, but the majority of Americans don't agree with your views. If you don't like it, to damm bad. You can either (a), not buy a gun, or (b) not live in America. If the time comes that AMERICANS feel we should not have guns, we will amend the constitution.

You have two walls in this thread, the anti-gun people, and the pro-gun people (myself included). Complain all you want about the media and rap music and every other excuse you want to make, and keep overlooking the fact of responsibility. The guy who shot the students at VT was the one responsible, not guns, nor the media, nor male sexuality or whatever stupid nonsense was brought up in that thread before it got locked.

This thread is pointless.

Today, I went to my local gun shop and picked up 4 20-round boxes of 175gr, 10mm auto cartridges for my new Glock 20. They are Silvertip hollow-points with scored jackets. I bear no animosity to my fellow man, but if they are in my house posing a threat to my wife and myself they're going to get the very best reception that I can give them. I have never aimed a gun at a person, and when I hunt deer, I either use my single-shot Ruger Model 1 .45-70 or a Winchester lever-action with only one cartridge loaded. If one shot is not sufficient, then I do not posses the skill to give the animal a clean kill and should not be hunting at all.

 

[scorpa]

What many Euorpeans and city fail to realize is the the vast majority of the US land mass is rural in nature. So for many a gun is not a toy, but a tool. It is necessray for protection of crops and herds. While most of the population is urban, that which is not has very different needs.

A few years back, in Oregon, the women folk of Portland and Eugene decided that hunting Cougar with dogs was cruel and should be halted. The fact that it is the ONLY effective way of hunting cougar failed to impress them.

It is no longer safe for women and kids to walk in the woods

I completely agree with this. I made this point what seems like hundred pages back now (this thread moves fast!) but people seemed to disagree by saying such things as 'well there are other ways to scare a predator off'. People who don't live that lifestyle just do not understand that people do not just consider guns toys and that the majority of people use them as tools.

 

[drankin]

Can that check be done in today ?

If you are talking about the background check, yes. In most states, before you purchase your gun, they run your name and # against a federal database.

If any more restrictions come from this, it should be that you have to be an actual American national in order purchase a firearm. I mean, just that fact that we have been attacked in our own country (9-11) should make this a no-brainer that only Americans should be allowed their Constitutional right to bear arms here. Yes, I understand that 9-11 wasn't gun related, not my point. How many non-Americans have to kill Americans on our own soil for this to be obvious?

 

[Evo]

I don't have the link here, but I believe there are over 200 million registered guns in the US, now compare that to the number of murders commited with guns.

I just did a few posts earlier: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1305638&postcount=240

Here are the numbers

"In 1994, 44 million Americans owned 192 million firearms" That's out of almost 300 million people.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

Homicides by gun have fallen drastically since the mid 90's, although gun ownership has increased.

Homicides by Handgun and other gun

1976 8,651 3,328
1977 8,563 3,391
1978 8,879 3,569
1979 9,858 3,732
1980 10,552 3,834
1981 10,324 3,740
1982 9,137 3,501
1983 8,472 2,794
1984 8,183 2,835
1985 8,165 2,973
1986 9,054 3,126
1987 8,781 3,094
1988 9,375 3,162
1989 10,225 3,197
1990 11,677 3,395
1991 13,101 3,277
1992 13,158 3,043
1993 13,981 3,094
1994 13,496 2,840
1995 12,050 2,679
1996 10,731 2,533
1997 9,705 2,631
1998 8,844 2,168
1999 7,943 2,174
2000 7,985 2,218
2001 7,900 2,239
2002 8,286 2,538
2003 8,830 2,223
2004 8,299 2,355

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2004.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/weaponstab.htm

 

[Art]

I'm going to weigh in a little bit even though I haven't previously on this thread.

First off don't blame guns for killings. This is entirely illogical. It's like saying pencils cause mispellings. Blame the people responsible.

Makes for a snappy catch phrase but is very overly simplistic. By the same logic nukes don't kill either so every country should have them and yet the US is adamant this shouldn't happen.

Second off as BobG has been explaining a huge and central part of the US government system is that the people ultimitely rule. The people have the right to overthrow their government hence the reason for the 2nd ammendment. Our founders were paranoid about their rights, this has become a characteristic of Americans. The fastest way to get an American angry is to make them feel like your stomping on their rights.

The argument Europeans make is that society is a lot safer without guns. Heres the key word safety. Europeans want their government to protect them. American's want their government to enforce contracts. Including the contract that is the Constitution. It's a contract with the people saying, here are your rights, and this is what we are authorizing you to do in order to govern us. There is a responsibility for taking care of yourself in the US. Thats why the Bill of Rights doesn't provide for the public safety. It provides for helping the citizen protect himself FROM the government and society(which will naturally seek to prosecute any perceived offece) even if he is guilty of a crime. These are things our Supreme court has argued in famous cases like Miranda Vs Arizona.

This makes for a better argument but is somewhat nullified by how easily Americans rolled over for Bush, trading freedoms for questionably improved security vis a vis The Patriot Act.

ukmicky no offence is intended here but the British Empire does not have a proud history of protecting human rights or other people. It instead has acted in its own interests. As has the US and most European powers..

Agreed which is why it is galling to cynical Europeans when many Americans appear to believe their gov't acts on moral imperatives i.e. bringing democracy to downtrodden people when the rest of the world knows Iraq was about oil.

In regards to the number of gun related deaths in the US. The number is like 14,000. We have something like 50 or 60,000 deaths from cars. The population of the US is 300,000,000. So based on this the vast majority of people in the US are not involved in violent crimes involving guns. And there are a huge number of guns in circulation within the US both automatic and semi-auto..

Yet the number of Americans killed through acts of terrorism are very small compared with either of the causes you have listed and yet look at the expenditure and freedom sapping practices the US public have accepted to avoid a repeat.

 

[Cyrus]

Makes for a snappy catch phrase but is very overly simplistic. By the same logic nukes don't kill either so every country should have them and yet the US is adamant this shouldn't happen.

No, its not. It goes for the exact same principle. Personal responsibility. Some countries are not RESPONSIBLE to have nuclear weapons, the same way some people are not RESPONSIBLE to own guns.

 

[Bystander]

Yup --- didn't leave anything but that filthy Marshall Plan money, assorted base payrolls, civilian employment --- that sort of thing.

Filthy for sure, the UK was a wreak after the war, in which America was able to inject life back into its economy, and collapse all the trade routes the UK owned.

Which trade routes were those? Suez? Jointly owned with France? Nationalized by Nasser? UK went in with U.S. on "freedom of the seas" in the early 19th century. That is, NO ownership.

The UK and many European countries were debted to the US for the next upteen years.

The only European country required to repay funds received under the Marshall Plan was W. Germany, and that debt was paid off in 1971 (3?). UK did have a three gigabuck 2% debt incurred under Lend-Lease from during the war, and there was talk of forgiving that 30-40 years ago --- it was more a matter of pride, and national integrity that it be paid off at the hundred million dollars a year (less than the cost of the accountants, lawyers, and bankers to handle its administration).

The UK just payed back its final installments, a nice thank you don't you think, for taking the brunt of Nazism, filthy, yeah Id agree with that.

Three billion at 2% for 60 years plus another three billion free. Properly managed (like W. Germany) that's a hundred billion dollar gift.

Belgium is still paying back its debts, this is actually a big reason why the taxes are so high here, its a myth that its due to social security etc, most of the money gets pumped into paying the interest, filthy you say, for sure.

None owed to the U.S. --- sounds like you've got some real crooks minding your store for you.
(snip)

_______________________________________________________________

the only question remaining is whether the U.S. should adopt the European preference for mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events.

(snip)Perhaps I missed all the posts of Europeans here stating they were all for mega-scale mass-murdering, if so I apologise.

Haven't noticed any Europeans bragging about mortality due to mass murder during the 20th century --- European management of European affairs during the 20th century certainly didn't prevent Hitler or Stalin from exacting the tolls they did.

(snip) Although first you should really make your mind up, either what happened was a "micro-scale event" or "indiscriminate mass murder."

"mega-scale mass murders through revision of the second amendment, or continue facing micro-scale events

(snip) "23 year old S. Korean senior English major committed indiscriminate mass murder on the campus of Virginia Tech" --- 33 fatalities, a micro-scale event; "A. Hitler a 40-50 some year old landscape painter and WW I veteran committed indiscriminate mass murder on the continent of Europe" --- 6 million plus victims, a mega-scale event; "J. Stalin a 30-60 some year old former Okrana agent, bank robber, and sawed-off runt committed indiscriminate mass murder on the continent of Europe" --- estimates range from 1-3 times Hitler's total, another mega-scale event.

_______________________________________________________________

And Europeans cannot look at their own history.

"Bull**** ?" Hardly --- the U.S. went into the Balkans to stifle assorted mass murder operations the Europeans were entirely too gutless to deal with less than 20 years ago. When we leave, the mass murders will resume, and the EU will still be too gutless to deal with it.

You like to use the word European as in the above text and in the rest of the post the above was from . As an English man I'm also a European, so i take it your including me and the rest of the UK citizens when you call the Europeans gutless.(snip)

Wouldn't dream of insulting "perfidious Albion" by including it with Europe. Crecy, Agincourt, Henry VIII, E-Beth I did a really admirable job of purging the European influence from "The Isles."

I wouldn't under any circumstances class the UK as gutless but are in fact one of the few countries which can legitimately say they have a proud record in regards to standing up for those unable to protect themselves.
I take it the word European was used in error.

Given the UK's history with the EEC, France during the Falklands, sudden reconciliation with the development of the North Sea fields? Europe is Europe, and the UK is a whole other political entity, too often misused by its "continental neighbors."
________________________________________________________________

This only happened in the Hollywood makeovers.

In the real world the US joined in WW1 for a few reasons. A major one was the interception of a telegram from Germany to Mexico offering to support Mexico in a war against the US and a second reason was Britain agreed to give the US it's bases in the Carribean.

"The Zimmerman telegram?" You know better than that.

In the end Britain was less than happy with the outcome as the US took so long to mobilise, the war was nearly over before a reasonable sized US force arrived in Europe.

Give us the rest of the story --- Wilson may have been a dreamer, but he knew better than to turn U.S. troops over piecemeal to Haig and Joffre to be turned into rat fodder.

Because of this delay the US only contributed in one campaign (using French made weaponry as the US at that time didn't have a lot of their own).

The French 75 was at that time the best field piece in the world (the German 77, a copy, was by some accounts as good), there was reticence to risk capture of John Browning's masterpieces (some sources say the M-2 was actually there, some don't --- never got that one resolved --- same-same re. BAR), hence the use of the Chauchat --- John Bull wouldn't license or otherwise allow us the use of the Lewis gun. We weren't too happy either.

During this campaign the US were the only army which failed to take their objective but did take heavy casualties as they tried to demonstrate to the Europeans the benefits of open warfare as opposed to trench warfare. So how exactly did the US save the day?

Wilhelm saw "the writing on the wall" --- at which point the last German offensive of the war was launched to end things before the Yanks got to the front in force; it involved overextension of supply lines through torn up country, but bogged down short of any strategically decisive point (Paris?). When the allied counterattack took place, the German army was out of men, food, ammunition, and everything but willpower to conduct an orderly time-consuming, fighting withdrawal to lines still well within France.

People seem to forget in the early 20th century it was the European nations which were the world's superpowers.

Which bled themselves to death in Flanders, on the Isonzo, and (sh*t, forgot the name of the damned swamp) on the eastern front.

In WW2 the US remained neutral until Japan bombed Pearl Harbour and even then the US did not declare war on Germany. It was Germany declared war on the US. And if we are all to be honest then we should acknowledge it was Russia mainly who beat Germany.

After Kursk, I'd call it (Hitler vs. Stalin) an even match, but at the same time Joe's temper tantrums were always about "When are you opening the second front?" Brinksmanship? Or, that close? Dunno.

So it is hard to see how you can claim the US saved Europe twice in the 20th century especially as despite vehement protests from Churchill, Roosevelt gave all of eastern europe to Stalin which led directly to the cold war which you also claim to have saved Europe from??

Okay, little "horseshoe nail" history: let's say that following Battle of Britain, some sort of "peace" arrangement is reached between UK and Germ. (iffy); Stalin vs. Hitler (w' no distractions --- peace deal pulls Italy from N. Afr. and Greece) turns into a very even match; Joe wins, he's not going to stop at the Rhine. This all depends on FDR being reined in by Congress re. Europe --- leaves him nothing to gain by starting a brawl in the Pacific --- "what ifs" don't really constitute arguments, but it's probably safe to say that the course of European history would have been radically different without U.S. involvement.

"Cold War?" Started in 1918 at Archangel, Murmansk, and Port Arthur ("Strangle the monster in its cradle" and all that?).

"Saved Europe?" WW I, tipped the balance of military power to the point that Wilhelm had to go for broke --- and, lost --- that's one; no U.S. entry, and it's anybody's guess what happens to Europe --- Spain and Portugal stayed out, Sweden and Norway stayed out --- and everyone else is bankrupt and bled to death --- does the Russian Revolution jump borders west? WW II, arsenal of democracy, balance of power, definitely in Joe's road west of the Rhine, and the UK was not going to liberate France or Belgium on its own --- that's two; post WW II phase of Cold War, we didn't have to stay, help rebuild, nuttin' --- that's three; Balkan mess, not our department, and not a threat, but still large-scale mass murder, and "humanitarian" (worst reason in the world to go to war) concerns dictate that Europeans do something about it --- Mad Madeline had it in for Milosevic, so we took the lead --- not really a fourth save, but picking up after other peoples' messes when they've had more than enough time and opportunity --- maybe you see the point.

 

[gravenewworld]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

 

[drankin]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

Absolutely not. Now, only rich people can defend themselves? I don't think so.

 

[scorpa]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

Learn to make your own bullets...problem solved

People seem to have this idea that everyone out there with a gun is using it to kill others. That is hardly true. As I mentioned before most people use them as a tool. You can use cars to kill people, knives, bombs...ect guns are hardly the only way ...hell you can beat a person to death. Take away the guns and you are only punishing the good people who have them, not the criminals.

 

[Evo]

Why don't we just do what we do with everything else that people have the "right" to use or own, but is bad for them? TAX THE HELL OUT OF IT!

Why not charge $1000 for a box of bullets? That way not many people are going to be able to afford dozens of magazines that they could use to kill people.

Criminals and crazy people would just steal them. When you consider how many people own guns and how few crimes are commited with them (by proportion) the great majority of gun owners are not going out shooting people.

 

[gravenewworld]

then why not require that all magazines for gun have a maximum capacity of say, only 5 bullets?

then charge $1000 per magazine so no one can can afford to carry tons of them. that way people still get their guns and their bullets, and anti gun people get at least some sense of tighter restrictions on guns.

we tax the hell out of cigarettes, but you don't see many people that are addicted to cigarettes breaking into store to steal them.

 

[drankin]

then why not require that all magazines for gun have a maximum capacity of say, only 5 bullets?

then charge $1000 per magazine so no one can can afford to carry tons of them. that way people still get their guns and their bullets, and anti gun people get at least some sense of tighter restrictions on guns.

we tax the hell out of cigarettes, but you don't see many people that are addicted to cigarettes breaking into store to steal them.

Sorry, no dice.

 

[gravenewworld]

Sorry, no dice.

can you give 3 good reasons as to why someone may need say 15 bullets in a gun as opposed to only 5?

People buy 6 shooters all the time for protection, why not require all guns to carry roughly that same size capacity?

 

[turbo]

Criminals and crazy people would just steal them. When you consider how many people own guns and how few crimes are commited with them (by proportion) the great majority of gun owners are not going out shooting people.

I own quite a few guns. Recently, I decided to sell off a number of them to finance the purchase of a nice digital single-lens reflex camera (A VERY stupid financial move, but I like photography). One guy showed up with not much cash but a VERY hard-stopping Glock M20 chambered for the 10 mm auto and I agreed to trade a Winchester for it. I'm glad I did. Many police departments have declined to adopt this cartridge because they are recruiting minorities and women with smaller hands who have trouble handling the recoil from this round. I am a small person, but with a solid two-handed grip, this gun is very controllable and accurate. My neighbor and I shoot pistols at skeet targets (about 4" diameter) set up on a bank about 30' away and we see how many we can shatter with x shots in y time. It's pretty loose and wooley, but, fun.

Hint: Knock first, politely identify yourself and ask if you can come in. If you don't YMMV.

 

[siddharth]

Homicides by gun have fallen drastically since the mid 90's, although gun ownership has increased.

Are you sure that gun ownership has increased? From the link you gave in your post,

Perhaps as a result of the increasing urbanization of America, the overall prevalence of gun ownership appears to be declining, as is participation in hunting. Proportionately fewer households owned firearms in 1994 than was true in the 1960s and 1970s, and the younger cohorts are entering into gun ownership at slower rates than previous ones.

But, one can see that the Homicides by Handgun and other guns remains fairly constant despite decreasing gun ownership since 1976.

 

[drankin]

can you give 3 good reasons as to why someone may need say 15 bullets in a gun as opposed to only 5?

People buy 6 shooters all the time for protection, why not require all guns to carry roughly that same size capacity?

Give me 3 reasons why I can't carry 300 as apposed to 5 bullets? Add that to charging a $1000 bucks per magazine to hold them as you suggested.

 

[gravenewworld]

Give me 3 reasons why I can't carry 300 as apposed to 5 bullets? Add that to charging a $1000 bucks per magazine to hold them as you suggested.

1.) because you don't have any "right" what so ever to carry that many bullets. you only have the right to ownership of a gun.

2.) because no one needs 300 bullets to kill something

3.) because no one is saying you can't have 300 bullets, but only by the means by which you can use them should be restricted.

 

[Cyrus]

1.) Yes, you do. Because there is no law saying you can't.

2.) You don't need a big gas guzzling SUV, but that doesn't mean you can't have one.

3.) Thats a problem, because then no one can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using 5 bullets at a time.

 

[Evo]

Are you sure that gun ownership has increased? From the link you gave in your post,.

Yes, it says that, but gun applications in 2002 were only 7.8 million, and the year 2003-2004 says 13.7 million guns were purchased. So has the total number of guns gone up while the number of households has decreased?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/guncontrol/a/bradychecks.htm

But, one can see that the Homicides by Handgun and other guns remains fairly constant despite decreasing gun ownership since 1976.

No, if you look at the table, homicides with guns has sharply decreased since 1996.

 

[drankin]

1.) because you don't have any "right" what so ever to carry that many bullets. you only have the right to ownership of a gun.

So, our founding fathers wanted us to defend ourselfs with hunks of metal? They should have suggested the right to bear axes or spears. No dice.

2.) because no one needs 300 bullets to kill something.

Needs? Why restrict my ammo capacity because you don't think I "need" it. Maybe I want to practice in the event I need to defend myself, family, or some other helpless victim against a gang of armed thugs? Or worst yet, I actually "need" 300 hundred rounds to keep a bunch of gang-bangers at bay. Because, you know those thugs have "full" capacity magazines!

3.) because no one is saying you can't have 300 bullets, but only by the means by which you can use them should be restricted.

You haven't given any good reasons to restrict my ammo capacity. Just reasons why you don't think I "need" it. The truth is, I don't "need" it. I'm a damn good shot. But, as soon as you start restricting what I can use, where does it stop? That's the real concern of law-abiding, gun owning Americans.

anyhow, goodnight for now...

 

[gravenewworld]

1.) Yes, you do. Because there is no law saying you can't.

2.) You don't need a big gas guzzling SUV, but that doesn't mean you can't have one.

3.) Thats a problem, because then no one can defend themselves against a tyrannical government using 5 bullets at a time.

1.) There is no law that says you have the right to a driver's license. It is a privilege, not a right.

2.) You can still own 300 bullets.

3.) The day America ever becomes a tyrannical government is the day America ceases to exist.

 

[Cyrus]

1.) There is no law that says you have the right to a driver's license. It is a privilege, not a right.

2.) You can still own 300 bullets.

3.) The day America ever becomes a tyrannical government is the day America ceases to exist.

1.) Yes, there is something in the constituion that does say I can. Gun ownership is not a privilage, its a right! BIG DIFFERENCE!

3.) Have you seen the things Bush is doing?

Yeah, I want guns around...cuz guys like GW would do much much worse.

 

[gravenewworld]

So, our founding fathers wanted us to defend ourselfs with hunks of metal? They should have suggested the right to bear axes or spears. No dice.

And a six shooter doesn't provide protection how?

Needs? Why restrict my ammo capacity because you don't think I "need" it. Maybe I want to practice in the event I need to defend myself, family, or some other helpless victim against a gang of armed thugs? Or worst yet, I actually "need" 300 hundred rounds to keep a bunch of gang-bangers at bay. Because, you know those thugs have "full" capacity magazines!

If you were ever in a shoot out against a bunch of people in a gang, you would probably be dead anyway. You wouldn't last to be able to use 300 bullets, unless you carried an assault rifle, which are banned anyway.

You haven't given any good reasons to restrict my ammo capacity. Just reasons why you don't think I "need" it. The truth is, I don't "need" it. I'm a damn good shot. But, as soon as you start restricting what I can use, where does it stop? That's the real concern of law-abiding, gun owning Americans.

anyhow, goodnight for now...

and you don't have any good reasons for unlimited ammo capacity. you still have a fully functional weapon with just 5 bullets.

 

[gravenewworld]

1.) Yes, there is something in the constituion that does say I can. Gun ownership is not a privilage, its a right! BIG DIFFERENCE!

Exactly, gun ownership is a right. It mentions nothing about the right about how many bullets one can own or how much ammo a gun should legally be allowed to carry. I never said you should take away someone's right to a gun.

 

[Cyrus]

Assult weapons are no longer banned grave.

And that is not the sprit of why we have guns in the constitution. Its was put there explicity to keep the government in check. At the time of its writing, all citizens had full military weapons (muskets).

I think the constitution had in mind what exists in Switzerland. I.e. everyone having a full-on assult weapon in their house.-the standard military weapon of our time.

 

[ShawnD]

we tax the hell out of cigarettes, but you don't see many people that are addicted to cigarettes breaking into store to steal them.

While people don't rob a store for the sole purpose of cigarettes, it's not uncommon for thieves to steal cigarettes while they are robbing a 7-11.
Liquor stores also seem to have huge problems with robbery. Damn drunks.

It should probably also be pointed out that having a clip of 5 still makes it easy to kill 1 person. Humans are not rhinos, you don't need to shoot them more than once, or maybe twice, or maybe 9 times (lol 50 cent). Regardless of how many bullets you have, you only need 1 to kill somebody, which means the law would do absolutely nothing. Next thing you know, gangs are making extended clips (don't people already do this?) and the media would pick it up as "assault weapons now with assault clips!"

 

[Averagesupernova]

The whole thing comes down to misinformation and a skewed image of what actually goes on (and doesn't go on) in the good old USA. I just can't seem to shake the idea that the non-US residents participating in this thread don't have a clear vision of how we live here in the states. It's obvious to me that they just cannot imagine life here simply because they have not experienced it. Kind of like a person who has been deaf since birth cannot possibly imagine what it's like to be able to hear. I am mostly referring to people with lifestyles like Turbo-1 and myself, both rural. I suspect the anti-gunners in this thread would be completely lost living like Turbo-1 and I. The USA is not like the average European landscape. There are some VERY wide open spaces here and the honest truth of it is that if guns were actually banned there are many places that the ban would not be enforced. It would not be considered worth the local law enforcements time to do so. The attitude would be, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So what if John Q. Public has a gun? He isn't bothering anyone so we'll leave him alone.

 

[gravenewworld]

Assult weapons are no longer banned grave.

And that is not the sprit of why we have guns in the constitution. Its was put there explicity to keep the government in check. At the time of its writing, all citizens had full military weapons (muskets).

I think the constitution had in mind what exists in Switzerland. I.e. everyone having a full-on assult weapon in their house.-the standard military weapon of our time.

Do you know what one of the deadliest weapons in WWII was?

It was the American M1 Garand. The garand only had a 8 round capacity. Many war historians credit the garand not only for American dominance in WWII, but a big reason for winning the entire war. To say that limiting round capacity on a gun will make it less effective or make one less be able to defend themselves really isn't that true at all.

It should probably also be pointed out that having a clip of 5 still makes it easy to kill 1 person. Humans are not rhinos, you don't need to shoot them more than once, or maybe twice, or maybe 9 times (lol 50 cent). Regardless of how many bullets you have, you only need 1 to kill somebody, which means the law would do absolutely nothing. Next thing you know, gangs are making extended clips (don't people already do this?) and the media would pick it up as "assault weapons now with assault clips!"

Having a gun makes it easy to kill one person. Preventing people from having dozens of clips prevents mass homicide. How could you make an extended clip if you can only afford to buy 1?

 

[scorpa]

It's obvious to me that they just cannot imagine life here simply because they have not experienced it. Kind of like a person who has been deaf since birth cannot possibly imagine what it's like to be able to hear. I am mostly referring to people with lifestyles like Turbo-1 and myself, both rural. I suspect the anti-gunners in this thread would be completely lost living like Turbo-1 and I.

A good solid point, that has been brought up multiple times in this thread and keeps getting ignored...perhaps people are just missing it due to the fast pace of the thread or maybe just maybe no one can argue with it . I full heartedly agree with you. Unless you've lived that life you won't quite understand it. I am thrilled to be going back to it this summer

 

[Cyrus]

Do you know what one of the deadliest weapons in WWII was?

It was the American M1 Garand. The garand only had a 8 round capacity. Many war historians credit the garand not only for American dominance in WWII, but a big reason for winning the entire war. To say that limiting round capacity on a gun will make it less effective or make one less be able to defend themselves really isn't that true at all.

So, are you prepared to supply me with high powered M1's? Guns that will shoot through police body armor.

Having a gun makes it easy to kill one person. Preventing people from having dozens of clips prevents mass homicide.

Having more stringent checks before they sell you a gun prevents mass homicide. The fact that you can get a gun and now your fit for life to have a gun is the problem. You should have periodic evaluations to show that you haven't gone bonkers 10 years down the road now that your stockpiled with weapons. Pilots have these checks yearly.

How could you make an extended clip if you can only afford to buy 1?

You'll have to ask whoever it was that gave you that reply, it wasnt me.

 

[ShawnD]

How could you make an extended clip if you can only afford to buy 1?

The idea is that you don't buy extended clips, you just make them. Or if you're too smart to be tweaking stuff you need to rely on, you could just buy it from another country over the internet. Did you know some people buy cigarettes on the internet just so they don't pay $8 for a pack? How about coca leaves (cocaine)? Did you know you can buy ephedrine online? Did you know you can buy prescription drugs online, without a prescription? You can't stop people from buying things they really want. If it's not available in the local market, criminals will search for it online and eventually find it.

Putting taxes on clips will do literally nothing to prevent mass homicides since people can just as easily buy those same clips from another country.

 

[gravenewworld]

So, are you prepared to supply me with high powered M1's? Guns that will shoot through police body armor.

actually to this day the M1 is a popular civilian fire arm. you can easily buy rifles that have just as much, if not more power than the M1

Having more stringent checks before they sell you a gun prevents mass homicide. The fact that you can get a gun and now your fit for life to have a gun is the problem. You should have periodic evaluations to show that you haven't gone bonkers 10 years down the road now that your stockpiled with weapons. Pilots have these checks yearly.

Would more stringent check have stopped the guy who did the VT shootings? Probably not. He had no criminal record. The only thing that would have stopped him is if there was a law that said you needed a written form stating that you passed a psychiatric evaluation before you tried to buy a gun. Do you ever think this would really happen? Probably not. If they would try to enact this, then gun owners would complain of having to pay the doctor's bill for the evaluation.

The idea is that you don't buy extended clips, you just make them. Or if you're too smart to be tweaking stuff you need to rely on, you could just buy it from another country over the internet. Did you know some people buy cigarettes on the internet just so they don't pay $8 for a pack? How about coca leaves (cocaine)? Did you know you can buy ephedrine online? Did you know you can buy prescription drugs online, without a prescription? You can't stop people from buying things they really want. If it's not available in the local market, criminals will search for it online and eventually find it.

Putting taxes on clips will do literally nothing to prevent mass homicides since people can just as easily buy those same clips from another country.

BUT IT WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL. Sure you can buy cigs online, however it is highly illegal. It is extremely illegal to buy cigs in another state for a cheaper price then bring them over the border in your state to sell them to your friends.

Criminals will indeed do it. But tell me this, was the VT shooter a criminal before he went on his rampage? NO! Sure making things illegal provides no guarantee. But it does make things more difficult!

 

[Cyrus]

Would more stringent check have stopped the guy who did the VT shootings? Probably not. He had no criminal record. The only thing that would have stopped him is if there was a law that said you needed a written form stating that you passed a psychiatric evaluation before you tried to buy a gun. Do you ever think this would really happen? Probably not. If they would try to enact this, then gun owners would complain of having to pay the doctor's bill for the evaluation.

Probably YES! He was taking medication and his teachers/students said he was not normal and needed some professional help.

 

[gravenewworld]

Probably YES! He was taking medication and his teachers/students said he was not normal and needed some professional help.

and how would a gun store clerk know of this? Due to HIPPA laws, finding out what medication a person is on isn't easy. how would a gun store clerk know of what his teachers and students said of him?

 

[Cyrus]

Obviously, the guy at the store is not qualified to perform an evaluation. Does the pilot get his medical from the baggage handler?

 

[ShawnD]

BUT IT WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL. Sure you can buy cigs online, however it is highly illegal. It is extremely illegal to buy cigs in another state for a cheaper price then bring them over the border in your state to sell them to your friends.

You're right, it is illegal. Very illegal. But people still do it.
My point is that there's no sense in making a law that you can choose to ignore and have no punishment for ignoring. You can buy cigarettes online because there's no way the government can track things like that. The box doesn't have any markings to say what it is, and the company selling the box of cigarettes doesn't need to tell anything to the government because companies in foreign countries do not obey local laws. The government can't just randomly search packages coming into the country to see if they contain tax-free cigarettes since doing that is illegal (searches need probable cause). So what exactly does having a law prohibiting the purchase of cigarettes from another country do? Absolutely nothing. And neither would a law putting huge tax on clips; people will just buy them from another country and there's nothing the government can do to stop it.

faux edit: before you claim that the government can require serial numbers on the clips and require them to be registered, that would be an after-the-fact action. By the time the police destroy the illegal clips, the killer has already used them to kill 30 people before killing himself.

 

[J77]

Of course it should be prohibited.

I'd point to the "Interesting Gun Safety Lesson" thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131578

and the "Man tries to rob woman in wheel chair!" thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=131334

and the "Canadian College Shootings" thread: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=132146

and the locked thread on the recent tragedy: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=165992

for my opinions.

 

[Monique]

that study is concerned with TOTAL deaths and TOTAL homocides. The US has a much larger population that any of the other countries listed. Did you take this into account in your graph?

If you read the data correctly, you'll see that the deaths are counted per 100,000:

International Violent Death Rate Table (Death rates are per 100,000)

 

[cristo]

that study is concerned with TOTAL deaths and TOTAL homocides. The US has a much larger population that any of the other countries listed. Did you take this into account in your graph?

Is it not also pretty obvious that it's not a total number of homicides, since Northern Ireland has a greater number of homicides, on that graph, than the United States?

 

[Monique]

It would be interesting to try and correlate the rates of firearm vs other means of homocide and suicide with gunownership, but I don't have time to do that now.

I can't withhold you the data, here it is. The firearm suicide rates are nicely correlated with gun ownership. The firearm homocide rate correlation is less clear, you'd need some statistics to interpret that.

http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/1914/statistics2xp5.png

 

[J77]

I'm never convinced about statistics w.r.t. political arguments; ie. both sides seem to be able to find an appropriate stat to bolster their argument.

However, on this issue, surely it's common-sense that less guns mean less gun related incidents!

And, I don't buy counter-arguments such as less cigarettes cause less lung cancer -- sure they do; however, that's not a reason to not ban something else which is obviously harmful.

e2a:

There are some VERY wide open spaces here and the honest truth of it is that if guns were actually banned there are many places that the ban would not be enforced.

How does a "wide open space" necessitate the use of a gun?

Sure, there would be many places a ban would not be enforced -- like there are many places were people do illegal things on a regular basis -- however, this doesn't mean that a ban should not be put in place. Which amongst other things would cut down on the availability of a deadly weapon from the highstreet.

 

[Art]

"The Zimmerman telegram?" You know better than that..

Meaning? Are you suggesting this wasn't the key event that led to America's entry?
Wilson who was steadfastly anti-war (and the American public even more so, 2.5 m of whom were born in Germany and a further 5.8 m had German parents - add to that the anti-British Irish from a total pop of 92 m) became aware of the text of the Zimmerman telegram 3 Mar made his decision to enter the war the 21 Mar and made his war speech to congress on the 2nd April. Prior to the telegram Wison's nightmare scenario had been a decisive British / French victory (hence his 'policy of peace without victory') as the US saw Britain at the time as a probable military threat. This distrust of Britain was also much in evidence in WW2.

It's also worth mentioning that America never did fully join in WW1. She declared war only on Germany and not on Germany's allies.

Give us the rest of the story --- Wilson may have been a dreamer, but he knew better than to turn U.S. troops over piecemeal to Haig and Joffre to be turned into rat fodder.

I don't disagree and I believe he was correct but that doesn't change the fact that America's contribution on the ground was relatively minor which is the point of contention.

The French 75 was at that time the best field piece in the world (the German 77, a copy, was by some accounts as good), there was reticence to risk capture of John Browning's masterpieces (some sources say the M-2 was actually there, some don't --- never got that one resolved --- same-same re. BAR), hence the use of the Chauchat --- John Bull wouldn't license or otherwise allow us the use of the Lewis gun. We weren't too happy either.

Again I don't disagree but it doesn't change the fact that America at that time simply wasn't well enough equipped to be a major influence in the outcome of the war

Wilhelm saw "the writing on the wall" --- at which point the last German offensive of the war was launched to end things before the Yanks got to the front in force; it involved overextension of supply lines through torn up country, but bogged down short of any strategically decisive point (Paris?). When the allied counterattack took place, the German army was out of men, food, ammunition, and everything but willpower to conduct an orderly time-consuming, fighting withdrawal to lines still well within France.

The key point here is the German supply situation. The British blockade (which Wilson btw had up until American entry objected to in the strongest possible terms) brought Germany to it's knees and had helped foment serious unrest on the German home front. In fact America's biggest contribution in WW1 was it's subsequent support of the blockade backed up by export embargos on food to countries suspected of supplying Germany. The final push by Germany was a last ditch attempt to win the war before support for it at home completely disintegrated which is in fact what happened as Germany were never defeated fully on the field of battle.

Which bled themselves to death in Flanders, on the Isonzo, and (sh*t, forgot the name of the damned swamp) on the eastern front.

Precisely, or more importantly it bled their economies to death which sent them into decline. A lesson from history the US would do well to learn from.

After Kursk, I'd call it (Hitler vs. Stalin) an even match, but at the same time Joe's temper tantrums were always about "When are you opening the second front?" Brinksmanship? Or, that close? Dunno.

After Kursk the Germans were finished with the end being accelerated by Hitler's order of no retreat. German war munitions production was struggling whereas Russia's output was growing exponentially.

Okay, little "horseshoe nail" history: let's say that following Battle of Britain, some sort of "peace" arrangement is reached between UK and Germ. (iffy); Stalin vs. Hitler (w' no distractions --- peace deal pulls Italy from N. Afr. and Greece) turns into a very even match; Joe wins, he's not going to stop at the Rhine. This all depends on FDR being reined in by Congress re. Europe --- leaves him nothing to gain by starting a brawl in the Pacific --- "what ifs" don't really constitute arguments, but it's probably safe to say that the course of European history would have been radically different without U.S. involvement.

The possibility of a peace deal between Germany and England would not have been so iffy. Although they fought 2 wars they liked and respected each other. After WW1 the British actually saw France as their most likely next protagonist (many still do ) and like Hitler the British establishment was vehemently anti-communist.

You're still a long way from showing how the US second amendment saved Europe's butts.

 

[turbo]

If you were ever in a shoot out against a bunch of people in a gang, you would probably be dead anyway. You wouldn't last to be able to use 300 bullets, unless you carried an assault rifle, which are banned anyway.

This is absolutely untrue. You can own a fully-automatic rifle or machine pistol, not just the semi-auto, cosmetically similar versions popularly called "assault rifles". You have to apply for the permit, undergo a background check and then pay a registration fee for each such weapon that you buy. The paperwork for each purchase has to be completed and filed by a Federal Firearms License holder who has paid the annual $500 occupational tax to deal in Class III weapons. That's all. ANY FFL holder (even the guy at the local pawn shop or small gun shop) can buy or sell Class III weapons including fully-automatic weapons, as long as they pay the $500 occupational tax to the BATF. (That fee comes due in July of every year, in case you think that I'm blowing smoke.)

 

[siddharth]

Yes, it says that, but gun applications in 2002 were only 7.8 million, and the year 2003-2004 says 13.7 million guns were purchased. So has the total number of guns gone up while the number of households has decreased?

I couldn't find where you get the figure of 13.7 million guns purchased?

No, if you look at the table, homicides with guns has sharply decreased since 1996.

That's true, my mistake. There's a sharp decrease from 1993 to 1999, and it's been stable after that.

It would be interesting to try and correlate the rates of firearm vs other means of homocide and suicide with gunownership, but I don't have time to do that now.

I've attached a couple of charts which shows the trends in ownership of household firearm and firearm homicides. The data was from the General Social Survey and the US dept of justice respectively.

Data for some of the crucial years (ie, the odd years since 1994) on the ownership of guns are missing.

Actually, it's hard to draw a definite conclusion from this
For reference, here's the data

Year    Homicides caused          Percentage of households with guns
          by guns
1976	11979				46.7
1977	11954				50.7
1978	12448				  -
1979	13590				  -
1980	14386				47.7
1981	14064				  -
1982	12638				43.8
1983	11266				  -
1984	11018				45.2
1985	11138				44.3
1986	12180				  -
1987	11875				42.5
1988	12537				40.1
1989	13422				46.1
1990	15072				42.7
1991	16378				39.9
1992	16201				  -
1993	17075				42.1
1994	16336				40.7
1995	14729				  -
1996	13264				40.2
1997	12336				  -
1998	11012				34.9
1999	10117				  - 
2000	10203				32.5
2001	10139				  -
2002	10824				33.5

 

[turbo]

The graphs don't tell the whole story. Looking at the percentage of households with firearms, you should expect to see a decline over the past couple of decades. First of all, some states and municipalities have enacted anti-gun legislation aimed mostly at handguns, so households in those areas will have either 1) fewer guns or 2) fewer people that will admit to having guns. In Maine you can own and carry a handgun openly, but you need a permit if you want to carry it concealed. In Massachusetts, you have to have a permit to even own a handgun and there are strict laws about how they can be transported through the state. NYC is very restrictive about the possession of handguns and transportation of same. IIR, they require you to be a member of a shooting club and you have to follow strict rules about transportation and are limited in the frequency of such transportation. There is also a permitting fee that you have to pay every two years. Legally owning a handgun in NYC can be expensive. Again, it is likely that very few people in NYC actually gave up their handguns when the restrictions started to hit - they just kept them hidden and refused to acknowledge that they owned any.

 

[enricfemi]

it seems more people dislike guns,and the shooter in this case maybe is common in daily life .i think such things hardly happen in China.